Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2

On 18 Nov, 22:56, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
HighQ wrote:
On 18 Nov, 14:44, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
HighQ wrote:
On 18 Nov, 00:22, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
spintronic wrote:
.
.
Unless you make the
additional assumptions that evolution will inevitably lead to
technological civilizations, and that these civilizations will last in
that state for significant fractions of the duration of the universe.
But if we are here and you say we evolved, you are wrong about 1) from
the getgo.
Why? You are saying that if something happens once, therefore it will
happen every time? If Bob wins the lottery on November 17, that means
everyone will win the lottery every day?.
.
.
Just sobering up, so I'll post later, but this is a silly argument.
On that we agree. Perhaps you should stop posting while drunk.
.
.

Lets say bob enters every week, with the same ((numbers) /
(combination of chemicals))
If he does so for 13,983,816 weeks he must win once.
..
..

That betrays a poor understanding of probability. In fact there is no
requirement that he will ever win, no matter what the chance of winning,

But there is equally a probability that he will win every time.

Perhaps you don't know what "must" means.


Sure I do. It means it must be one or the other.

Which is it?

(BTW, don't ever quote the probability of nucleotides forming peptides
ever again)

And thus, the probability levels out at 1 in 13million.

Why?


Because you have 3 options

1) The probability is 1/13million.

2) There is a probability it will never happen.
3) There is a probability it will happen every time.

Since;

2) / 3) = 50/50 = 1

That leaves 1*option 1)



And the chance of either is 50/50.

Either? Either what?

Either we are living in a universe where it never happens,

Or we are living in a universe where it happens every time.


Or we could choose my original option. It occurs on average.



So either we are very unlucky, very unlucky, or very unlucky, & very
very very very lucky at the same time.

In that (unlucky = can't find anyone. Lucky = we defy the odds by
being here).

Or

We are just very very very very lucky.

Either way, our ship just come in.

Please stop posting while drunk. I defy anyone to make sense of all that.


Made sense to me, and anyone else with an IQ over 0.0005.


That has a *TIME* component.
Indeed it does, but that doesn't mean he will win.

But it also means he may win all of the time.

What does "must" mean to you?

It means it "must" be one or the other.


If he does so for twice the time he wins twice.
No he doesn't. He might win twice. He might win once. He might win a
thousand times. Each of these has a probability. That probability is
never 1, and it's never 0.

And thus he has 33.3%  probability of either living in an amazingly
unique universe, in which;

a) He won once, is the first ever to win, and noone else will ever do
so.
b) He  wins with everyone else every day, because we are all lucky.

Or;

c) He lives in an average universe where the probability of winning is
1 in 13 million.

Whenever you say "thus" or "therefore" or something like that, I expect
that some non sequitur will follow. I am never disappointed.


And thus; you therefore never disprove the non sequitur.


Lets say we have 30 million bobs.
Then we have 30 million winners in 13,983,816 weeks,
If we assume that you mean there is a 1 in 13 million chance of winning
per trial,

Yes, * 30 million trials.

that number will be roughly correct. But where did that
assumption come from?

If it's correct, how can it be an assumption?

Sometimes I reach the end of my tether


Am I getting to you? Am I getting to you?


and just have to point out that you're an idiot.


Good for you, but why can't you disprove me wrong?


This is one of those times.


Where you can't disprove me wrong?


The assumption I'm talking about (signaled above by the words "if we assume") is that ther eis a 1
in 13 million chance of winning per trial. Where did that assumption
come from?


The lottery you annologised to illustrate your lies.


What if the chance of winning was 1 in 10^50? Now
how many winners are there likely to be, given that Bob won once?

Just 1.

Us.

And that is my whole point.

I'm pretty sure you don't have a point.

Why don't you argue the one above then?


Why are we alone?

You *CANNOT* spout about chemical & evolutionary pathways that lead to
life in one sentence, and then say we are all alone in another.

REMEMBER: You can't "double bluff".

I still don't know what "double bluff" means.


That's no doubt why you can't do it.

Let me just point out that
you are once again confusing life with high-tech civilization.


You are confusing Bob who has 7 numbers, with someone who wins a
tenner off 3.


Whether we're alone or not does not depend on whether life is common or not.
Life and intelligent life are two different things. Intelligent life and
high-tech civilization are two different things.


So you're saying there are no Bill Gates, no Warren Buffets, just Bob
who won a lottery?


In the *REAL* world, we have Bob's, Poor people, & Billionaires.

So where is everyone?


Where are the Steve Jobbs?


(13,983,816 weeks, = 4 billion years apparently)
So (4 into 14 = 3.5) = 105 million.
Which means we have 105million winners.
Yet we are the only one within 2000 light years?
Why?
Because you appear to have made up your 1 in 13 million probability with
no apparent justification,

*YOU* brought up bob. *YOU* brought up the lottery.

*I* simply worked out the odds of *BOB* winning the lottery.
In the U.K (49 ball's etc) , that's 1/13million.

Nobody ever said Bob lived in the UK.


Same odds. No matter wherte he lives.

And the actual odds weren't the point.


So why bring up an analogy, that explodes in your face?



You said something stupid,.

Don't think so.

and I tried to explain, with an analogy, why that was stupid.

Because it exploded.

But you now seem to think that this 1 in
13 million applies to life in the universe.


Either probabilities apply everywhere or nowhere.

Same as evolution.


and then applied it to derive a real
conclusion.

I am applying your drivel, to your drivel conclusions.

Don't blame me if you don't like drivel.

 But you have no evidence for that probability.

Uh?

*YOUR* lottery, *YOUR* evidence.

Why is it that creationists are completely incapable of understanding
the point of any analogy?

Why do evolutionists use analogies that explode?


How's your steam?




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
    ... technological civilizations, and that these civilizations will last in ... requirement that he will ever win, no matter what the chance of winning, ... But there is equally a probability that he will win every time. ... life in one sentence, and then say we are all alone in another. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
    ... technological civilizations, and that these civilizations will last in ... If Bob wins the lottery on November 17, ... But there is equally a probability that he will win every time.. ... life in one sentence, and then say we are all alone in another. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life? 2
    ... technological civilizations, and that these civilizations will last in ... If Bob wins the lottery on November 17, ... But there is equally a probability that he will win every time. ... life in one sentence, and then say we are all alone in another. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Is it possible for a probability to be unknown?
    ... to say, "Of the choice 'life exists there' and 'no life exists there', ... Alpha Centauri, based exclusively on the fact that we don't know, would ... Probability, to me, seems to be simply a measure of what we don't ... Bob hasn't observed this. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Is chemistry alone sufficient for life?
    ... believed that chemistry alone wasn't sufficient for an explanation of ... which made life appear and evolve. ... probability. ... this is only one planet. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)